Dispatches from the drug war

– In a significant retreat from its previous position, Eric Holder’s Justice Department has announced it won’t impose federal laws on states that have legalized marijuana. It’s about time.

– But in Framingham, it’s still the cops vs. the hippies. “The Grateful Head,” the town’s first head since cops trashed the Psychedelic Emporium a decade ago, opened on Rte. 9 this spring, with all the necessary permits from town departments. Now the Framingham Police have shut it down and seized its inventory. As a result, the town is facing yet another potentially expensive lawsuit.

So in Washington, officials are finally starting to hear the voices of the people and adjust to the 21st century. But it’s still 1968 in Framingham. Here’s a question to ponder: When are the civilians in Framingham going to take charge of their police department?

This drives me crazy. Where in the constitution does Holder or the AG even get the power to impose penalties on states acting within their state borders or to arrest citizens for acting in compliance with state law? All that’s happening is that for the first time ever Holder is recognizing that the US Constitution exists.

Lee, show me in the United States Constitution where the federal government has the power to create criminal offenses which are not interstate. Just show me one stinking little clause that gives Congress that power to legislate or the AG’s power to enforce. I’ll give you a hint–it doesn’t exist. that’s why prohibition required a constitutional amendment.

Instruct us, Rob. Does the Constitution explicitly authorize states to stop the enforcement of federal laws within their borders? Don’t federal laws, by accepted legal tradition, supersede state laws? Has the constitutionality of federal drug laws never been challenged in court?

The law is clear–there has to be an interstate angle. the feds have always argued interstate “effects” but most states had laws criminalizing pot, which is why, when the laws are consistent in intent, the transportation across state lines for illegal purposes is federal. If its not illegal in the state of importation, there is no federal crime.

No, he hasn’t. His statement was “by the grace of his Lord and Messiah, Barrack Hussein Obama, I determine as a matter of sovereign perogative that the happy people with munchies shall be allowed to roam free and unfettered.” Just once, just once, I’d like to hear something honest from this Regime, like “we’ve looked at the law and we don’t have a damn leg to stand on in termsof prosecuting state residents for engaging in lawful activity under state law.”

Actually, after the righteous indignation from Rob over the police trashing of the Psychedelic Emporium, I expected Framingham’s running a Rte. 9 merchant out of business to be the item that drives him crazy.

Sorry. I missed that point. I’m still upset about the first go around. that building is still empty. I have drug paraphernalia in my house too–they are called “matches.”

Comments are closed.

About this blog:

Holmes & Co. is a Blog for Independent Minds, a place for a free-flowing discussion of politics, policy, news and opinion.

This blog is the online cousin of the Opinion section of the MetroWest Daily News. As such, our focus starts in the MetroWest/495 area and spreads from there to include Massachusetts, the nation and the world. You'll also find here lots of cross-referencing to columns and editorials in the MetroWest Daily News.

The blog presents an opportunity for readers to comment directly and immediately on pieces that appear on the print pages.